Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a provision that requires sixteen states with a history of voter suppression and racial discrimination to clear any proposed changes in voting laws with the Justice Department before they can go into effect. It is being challenged in the US Supreme Court, and today was the first day oral arguments were heard, and it wasn’t pretty. Justice Antonin Scalia unintentionally made the case for why Section 5 is still very much needed:

The Voting Rights Act took a beating from conservative justices Wednesday during oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

At issue is the constitutionality of Section 5 of the 1965 law, which requires state and local governments with a history of voter disenfranchisement to pre-approve any changes that affect voting with the Justice Department or a federal court.

Oral arguments showed a sharp divide along ideological lines and suggested that the conservative majority is strongly inclined to overturn Section 5 of the half-century-old law.

=====

Justice Antonin Scalia attributed the continued congressional reauthorization to the “perpetuation of racial entitlement” and suggested that it will be renewed endlessly because members of Congress would never let it lapse for fear for political repercussions.
“I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act,” Scalia said. “They are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful — the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?”

JUSTICE SCALIA: …This Court doesn’t like to get involved in — in racial questions such as this one. It’s something that can be left — left to Congress.
The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it.

And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.

That’s the — that’s the concern that those of us who — who have some questions about this statute have. It’s — it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.

Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?

And this boys and girls is yet another reason why Scalia shouldn’t be the model for a Supreme Court justice yet watch every Republican candidate in 2016 for president say that we need more judges like him. He’s a fucking prick. He seems to have no regard to why these laws were created in the first place and I have no doubt had he been on the Warren Court in the 60’s, he’d be ruling in favor of segregation with a smile on his face.

Scalia has a 30 year history of opposing the voting righs act , and his recent comments prove it . If ever a Justice should RECUSE himself from this issue , Scalia is the posterboy .
Unfortunately his reasoning, which is nothing more than a sarcastic smack in the face to ALL Americans and their RIGHT to vote ,presents a possibility of VRA SECT. 5 beng overturned .
What can be done ? make sure any politician from ANY state ,voting against renewal , should SOTUS overturn it , be vehemently opposed in the voting booth , branded as an enemy of the Constitution , and an enemy of the people ,seeking to supress their right to vote . Indeed that sarcastic remark by Scalia that politicians fearing the loss of votes should ensure its renewal , is indicative of this man’s anti-Constitutional position .